to replace Ken Salazar (who'd been chosen to head Dept. of Interior), I was one of those who said, "WHO????"

Since then, I've been very impressed with Michael Bennet. He's very good at going out and meeting with constituents, listens well and actually responds to questions and comments. He also gives great hugs.

But Bennet and Udall especially on NSA secrecy, they've been top notch. I disagree with them from time to time but they are great guys. Kudos to them both. Colorado has some great Senators.

(He has a nice handshake too!)

It will be interesting to see where Obama falls on this.

So it goes to show just how well you can pressure Democrats when it comes to it. It helps that Colorado is an increasingly progressive state, though!

is unconstitutional, its just no one has challenged it yet (you would have to be a former congressman / senator who wants to work as a lobbyist).

The first amendment gives a clear right to petition the government.

If we need a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.

The current law is unethical as Congress supposedly being agents for the American People are either bought or induced to act against the general welfare.

When they leave Congress taking all that insider knowledge and connections to be employed as a lobbyist, in many cases by an industry they were overseeing while in Congress, the only logical result is corruption of the system.

come to mind.

A Realtor and a lawyer act as fiduciaries for their clients and can't divulge privileged information given to them, unless their client gives approval or there is a clear violation of law.

Congress as well is given trust by their clients; the American People to represent their best interests, and by their intimate, insider knowledge of government interactions.

Don Siegelman is serving a prison sentence for appointing a donor to a campaign that Siegelman liked to a state position on a commission.

If Siegelman's conduct is considered bribery, what about the members of Congress who accept pay for work done for a company after voting in that company's favor or for laws that benefit that company even if in some indirect way?

This is unconstitutional in the exact same way that money is speech and corporations are people.

I'm gonna guess the corporate whores will say freedom of speech.

I have had such an amazing ass-full of "the market will...insert pap here...." that I could freaking scream myself hoarse already.
There is no free market in America, only a rigged oligarchy and heaping mounds of bullshit.

I have said for years that there several things we could have done already that would have made this country something better than the stinking corpse of a once promising idea.

1) Term limits
2) Public financing of elections
3) Campaign Finance Laws (it used to be simply reform, but since the shylocks in the GOP have gutted all meaningful regulations already, we have to go all the way back to square one here...)

There are many other things - such as removing religion and all of its concurrent nonsense and regressive toxicity from politics again, returning to a nation that invests HEAVILY in basic science research and development (without bullshit NIH and CDC grants requiring pre-formulated results BEFORE a project is funded) and a full investment in transforming our military from a global expedition force and enforcement arm of the 0.01% into a border defense and technology force unlike anything the world has ever seen - but just excising the hypocrisy and malignancy of the current Beltway Bastards would be a good start...

deniers.

become lawmakers, and vice versa, is so glaring you would think it would be a no-brainer.

Good for them for introducing this bill.

what I mean by that is: I no longer believe that legislation like this would ever get passed by this bought-and-paid-for congress.

Sorry to say.

This will end the bribery. If you serve in Congress, you should not be able to take pay-backs after your term ends. The practice of serving in Congress and then becoming a lobbyist has been abused. The same rule should apply to judges. If you decide a case concerning a company, you should not be able to work for that company after you leave the bench.

Great idea!

Glad you're here! It IS a great idea! We need to stick a crowbar into that revolving door and stop its movement. Most of these assholes are just marking time before they can climb onto the BIG gravy train. Funny - my computer sometimes seems to have a rather mischievous auto-correct. When I started typing the word "gravy" it went straight to "graft"!!!

hours and hours of non-stop propaganda on it.

it really is as simple as that.

Proud and privileged to say I voted for both of them even if they are moderates on many issues. Great people.

The current law allowing the revolving door has no other alternative than to corrupt government with perpetual conflict of interest.

Congress has special powers to write law and unique privileges to ignore some of them, they should be held to a higher standard.

If a former Congressman or Senator wishes to voice his/her opinion, nothing prevents them from doing so, but they shouldn't be paid lobbyists working against the general welfare for the sake of an industry particularly when they were overseeing that same entity while employed by the American People.

namely freedom of speech and the freedom to petition the government.

You have the right to speak freely, and you also have the right to be paid to do so. If you didn't, then Congress could pass laws banning people from getting paid for writing a book or appearing at a TV show or speaking at a conference or rally.

Actually "general welfare" is pretty clear, it's the nation as a whole, the public.

The vast majority of industries work for one reason and one reason only to make money for themselves.

I would wager those lawmakers leaving Congress to become lobbyists for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood or unions are absolutely minuscule in comparison to those leaving for fossil fuel companies, cable companies, for profit prisons, the military industrial complex etc. etc.

There is no doubt lobbyists working for the for profit industries with the preeminent motivation of making money have the most money.

There are freedom of speech restrictions against other groups of people with far less power and responsibility than Congress, why shouldn't Congress be held to a higher standard of ethics as well?

If you assert that Congress can restrict people's free speech based on the fact that they're getting paid for it, then you are saying that Congress could, constitutionally, bar people from getting paid to write a book or make a movie or give a speech.

Money enables more speech, better legal representation, you know and I know money buys political power in one form or another legal and non-legal.

You can add Realtors to your mix as well.

Congress is supposed to represent the American People as fiduciary agents while in power.

Congress knows private information about the workings of government, they know what's confidential, secret and top secret, it's literally part of their job description. By their workings, they know private information about each other which gives them an inherent advantage in persuading, cajoling or blackmailing their former comrades after they leave office to represent a narrow minded industry as paid lobbyists.

All of this is at the expense of the American People as a whole or "general welfare."

Entire shit load.

Peace to you.

I believe even the Republican rank and file do not like lobbyists. Of course the establishment of both parties thrive on their relationships with lobbyists. Let's get rid of the quid pro quo.

I have written to my Senator (Bennet)and told him how pleased we are that he has proposed this needed change and how much we are hoping it will get some place.

But i doubt it goes far enough.

Lobbying is pretty sketchy, in its current format. But even if you take that away, the corps can still bribe politicians with a position as a consultant or a board member.

I dont know that I would be opposed to making some of these elected positions accompany a lifetime job. You spend your 6 years in the senate and then get voted out, or maybe you make it a few terms and put in 30 years then retire. Afterward, instead of retiring to a lobbying or consultant position, you then get a lifetime position in some sort of community service or government works field. I'm sure there are any number of school districts that could benefit from a regular guest lecture in their civics class, any number of parks systems that could use a public face with some gravitas to attract volunteers, etc. And I would think that a former congressman might make a better ambassador than some rich guy with connections.

Given that we pay many of them benefits after they leave congress anyway, and given the vast number of workers that the government has on its payroll anyway, I doubt the financial impact of doing this would be very significant. We pay our president, senators, and congressmen about 88 million per year. It would be fair to drop that somewhat after they left office. If they all are bribed with the promise of lucrative private industry gigs after service, I think we could make a convincing argument that the cost us Significantly more each year in the tax cuts and contracts and whatnot they carve out of the 35 Trillion dollar us Budget for their corporate sponsors.

Plus that It be a disincentive for the power hungry and greedy, and incentive for the truely service minded. What A type corporate type is going to want to take a chance on a 2 year term followed by a lifetime of well paid community service? Conversely, people who actually want to serve this nation would be more likely to be drawn to elected office, as at the end of their elected term they then have the opportunity to keep serving in a community service gig where the funding grant isn't going to be in question each year.

Lets include Federal Commissioners in this while we are at it.